( 1 ) I agree with my learned brothers conclusions and would like to express the reasons in a few words of my own.

( 2 ) ON behalf of accused 1, 3 and 12 the learned counsel, Sri Krishna Reddi, placed in the forefront of his arguments the contention that they have been prejudiced in their defence at the trial. He did not press for a determination of the other points raised in the appeals, if we proposed to give effect to the contention and order a retrial. As comments by us on the evidence would have embarrassed a fair retrial, we have examined the facts for the limited purpose of determining whether a retrial is necessary.

( 3 ) THE first point taken was that the charge did not give the accused proper notice of the offence they had to meet. This problem has to be solved bearing in mind the principles explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in W. Slaney v. State of M. P. (S) A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 116 and the provisions of Section 537 Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant portion of Section 537 reads thus:- "subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XX

Click Here to Read the rest of this document